Clark J. Hollway says, "If any genuine remnant of Shakespeare's voice can be found in <Double
Falsehood>, I thank the Arden editors for making it available to a modern audience." I thank them
anyway-for giving people like me a chance to form our own opinions on a play which absolutely
has some connection to Shakespeare.

>And I, for one, am thoroughly delighted that a major scholarly
>edition of Double Falsehood is now easily available, an
>edition fully up to the high scholarly standards one expects
>of the Arden series.

And I am feeling no small relief, both that my little amateur effort is no longer
bearing the entire weight alone, and that it seems to have passed muster as an
interim edition.

I have to agree with Peter Holland that the greatest thing about this new edition of Double
Falsehood is that it makes the play easily available to readers. Even just a year ago, when I was
researching Cardenio for my master's degree at University College London, reading Double
Falsehood meant a trip to the British Library, and so few had read it. That was probably a major
reason why so little attention has been paid to it before now, and so I'm glad that the new Arden
edition is fostering this kind of discussion.

In Hammond's introduction, I most enjoyed his discussion of Theobald's relationship with
Alexander Pope and Pope's role in branding the play a forgery from the start, all connected to DF's
place in Theobald's bid to be the next Shakespeare editor (replacing Pope) for the Tonson family. I
don't think the reviews of Hammond's edition have spent enough time considering about all this
new information Hammond presents.

I found than Rosenbaum, in his Slate article, recycled old arguments (cf. Harriet Frazier) without
reconsidering the play in light of Hammond's new evidence. I posted Clark's response on
MadShakespeare.com because I thought it did an excellent job of answering at least in part why
those arguments, in the end, fall apart.